SWAMP GHOST

[bdk]

Planes of Fame has the wreckage of a Japanese WW2 bomber displayed that way, and I found their display to be fascinating to look at and very tasteful. Other museums have wreckage on display in its original form.

But I have to say that if I had a choice, at least with the Betty, how many of you wouldn't want to see the POF take that project on and see that bomber restored back to flying condition with its original powerplants? As opposed to sitting in the corner of the hangar?

The reason the POF Betty is displayed the way it is (in my opinion) is because it is essentially shredded (heavily crashed) and gutted. There is likely nothing usable in the original engines. Anything can be restored though, so send lots of money. Unfortunately most visitors to the museum would walk right past it to go look at the Zero, the only Japanese airplane they've ever heard of.

[bdk]

I couldn't disagree more. It would be lovely to see her fly, no question, but you'd have to replace the bulk of the skin, and much of the structure to do it safely... While this is fine with a beaten up wreck, I don't think it is when you have an aircraft which is as straight and intact as the Ghost. She's such a rarety. Her history lies in her structure. If they go ahead and replace all of that, what are you left with??? A very nice replica. They may as well have left her in the swamp if that's the case.

But you contradict yourself, don't you? If the aircraft is straight and intact, much can be reused. Parts that are seriously damaged would likely have to be replaced even for static display unless you just dropped her back on her belly in a diorama.

Is this really much different than "Dottie Mae"? I've seen "Dottie Mae" up close and there is major crash damage as well as some holes corroded through the skin in the wings. Don't you want to control that corrosion for long-term preservation anyhow?

It sure would be interesting to see some walkaround photos once the aircraft has arrived at its new home. I sure don't have enough evidence to form an opinion at this point.

[RMAllnutt]

I couldn't disagree more. It would be lovely to see her fly, no question, but you'd have to replace the bulk of the skin, and much of the structure to do it safely... While this is fine with a beaten up wreck, I don't think it is when you have an aircraft which is as straight and intact as the Ghost. She's such a rarety. Her history lies in her structure. If they go ahead and replace all of that, what are you left with??? A very nice replica. They may as well have left her in the swamp if that's the case.

But you contradict yourself, don't you? If the aircraft is straight and intact, much can be reused. Parts that are seriously damaged would likely have to be replaced even for static display unless you just dropped her back on her belly in a diorama.

Is this really much different than "Dottie Mae"? I've seen "Dottie Mae" up close and there is major crash damage as well as some holes corroded through the skin in the wings. Don't you want to control that corrosion for long-term preservation anyhow?

It sure would be interesting to see some walkaround photos once the aircraft has arrived at its new home. I sure don't have enough evidence to form an opinion at this point.

Hah! I didn't actually contradict myself, although it might seem that way. Straight, and intact does not necessarily mean airworthy reliability... it just means it hasn't been bent, or perforated. Of course they'll need to strip her down pretty far to control corrosion, but this doesn't mean they can't put all the original parts back on her. From what I understand of Dottie Mae, they are doing an enormous job of retaining original material, but this incurs far more expense than simply building from new. Doing the same thing on the scale of a B-17 would be unimaginably expensive to do if the end result was an airworthy vehicle.... not impossible, but probably prohibitively expensive.

Cheers,
Richard

[RMAllnutt]

bdk and RMAllnutt, see the attached link for Webshots photos of uncrated Swamp Ghost on the dock at Lae when she was originally prepared for crating 3 years ago. Look at her skin and the method used to remove her wings; damage or corrosion visible?
http://news.webshots.com/album/552562680RaMyMb?start=0
Interesting debate about her condition that will probably have to wait until she comes to CONUS to verify. I have to admit, as others here say, the debate is a healthy one now that she's coming home. I wonder if the 1940 Ju-88 reclaimed from Lake Jonsvannet in Norway in 2004 could be the basis of a similar approach to the restoration for Swamp Ghost?
http://www.ju88.net/

Fascinating pictures... but you can't tell what the metal's like until you take the paint off. I've seen parts which looked perfect with the original paint on, but were full of corrosion once the paint came off because the water penetrated the paint. They were perfectly good for a static restoration, but unusable for anything airworthy. I agree, the Ju-88 restoration was a very good approach.

Cheers,
Richard

[george]

I certainly hope she is restored to fly. Like was mentioned, My Gal Sal is displayed in crash condition. Plus all the static Forts already on display around the country.

One down, one to go - The Lady deserves to come home as well. A perfect tribute to all the crews that sacrificed so much would be The Ghost and The Lady taking their stories to the people. Remember, there is already a D at the AF Museum, but not a single D is flying.

Two combat-vet heavies where they belong: living history.

[mustangdriver]

I don't think we are really going to know until they get it here and unlaoded a cleaned. remember that there are two other E models that are going to be airworthy.

[Robbie Roberts]

It is good to see the dispute has been solved.

Hopefully the Somali pirates won't intercept it on the water.

Great. Somali Pirate Air Force...

Robbie
PS- GREAT! She Is COMING HOME!!!

[PinecastleAAF]

Isn't the Pacific ocean slightly out of the way for the Somali sailors and their little pirate boats?

This thread is very funny.

[Dave Homewood]

Maybe Samoan pirates then

[JDK]

But you contradict yourself, don't you? If the aircraft is straight and intact, much can be reused. Parts that are seriously damaged would likely have to be replaced even for static display unless you just dropped her back on her belly in a diorama.

Is this really much different than "Dottie Mae"? I've seen "Dottie Mae" up close and there is major crash damage as well as some holes corroded through the skin in the wings. Don't you want to control that corrosion for long-term preservation anyhow?

Again there's a difference between 'museum quality conservation' which has the aim of slowing aging and decay as much as possible while retaining as much as possible of the original artefact, as against an airworthy restoration which has to have all parts certified to an airworthy standard - currently that means multiple parts are replaced. For airworthy restorations currently parts have to be replaced for certification issues not aging issues - thus many original parts cannot be re-used in a flyer.

There are four options for a hypothetical B-17 in a swamp.

Leave it where it was. Not popular, nor viable except for about a half century.

Display a wrecked aircraft on its belly in a diorama type setting - it's possible to insert a new support structure or arrange for multiple supports disguised by the diorama or display. Second lowest 'intervention'.

If you 'restore' or 'conserve' the aircraft onto its gear, then significant intervention to ensure the gear and surrounds can bear the structural weight under the design parameters, rather than 'settled' load paths is going to be necessary.

Restore a wrecked aircraft to fly, and that'll require the greatest intervention, including the disposal of a significant part of the structure and (remaining) fittings for paperwork (only) reasons (as we know, many of these items could be repaired or refurbished to fly safely, but the paper is an issue, as is the significantly greater cost of repair and test over NOS or new fabricated parts).

On a different tack, a wreck 'speaks' to the general public in a different way about the cost of war (human, stuff and cash) than a flying aircraft does. We all like flying aircraft - however as a means to illustrating the past, they are only one of many presentation options and in some cases, not the best.

The US government abandoned the aircraft in question many years ago. what happens to it - good or bad - lies with private enterprise now. Expectations of what rich boys do with their toys has changed somewhat over the years, and general trends are away from personal pleasures to wider merits.

Just a few thoughts.

[airnutz]

..while retaining as much as possible of the original artefact, as against an airworthy restoration which has to have all parts certified to an airworthy standard -

Hmmm..Ya'll must not have an "Experimental" category like we do.

Restore a wrecked aircraft to fly, and that'll require the greatest intervention, including the disposal of a significant part of the structure and

An interesting detail about "Swamp Ghost's" remains...IIRC, the qualities of the "soup" she rested in was reported to have
acted 'as if to anodize' the sheet metal. 'Twill be interesting to see if this is true...

[Shay]

An interesting detail about "Swamp Ghost's" remains...IIRC, the qualities of the "soup" she rested in was reported to have
acted 'as if to anodize' the sheet metal. 'Twill be interesting to see if this is true...

Really??

http://news.webshots.com/photo/2005333990072114131JwiVyG

Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

[airnutz]

Last edited by airnutz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

[airnutz]

An interesting detail about "Swamp Ghost's" remains...IIRC, the qualities of the "soup" she rested in was reported to have
acted 'as if to anodize' the sheet metal. 'Twill be interesting to see if this is true...

Really??

http://news.webshots.com/photo/2005333990072114131JwiVyG

Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

Eeeek! Obviously 'taint true!

[JDK]

..while retaining as much as possible of the original artefact, as against an airworthy restoration which has to have all parts certified to an airworthy standard -

Hmmm..Ya'll must not have an "Experimental" category like we do.

Australia does, the UK and many other countries doesn't. Experimental category B-17?

Restore a wrecked aircraft to fly, and that'll require the greatest intervention, including the disposal of a significant part of the structure and

An interesting detail about "Swamp Ghost's" remains...IIRC, the qualities of the "soup" she rested in was reported to have
acted 'as if to anodize' the sheet metal. 'Twill be interesting to see if this is true...

It's possible, but the actuality of the majority of airworthy restorations (of this level) is the disposal of significant structure for new material - most (if not all) of which could be retained in a static conservation job. I've been offered some of the best bull in the business about 'retaining material' and seen the new stuff going in. No names, no pack drill.

Regards,